Jump to content

Talk:Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dougom (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 4 October 2012 (→Fact Checking?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

"Media issues"

I'm having trouble understanding the heading "Media issues", and the distinction between those topics and some of the ones located elsewhere -- for example, why is the 47% thing discussed under "General campaign" and not "Media issues"? If anything, it appears that "Media issues" is basically stuff that happened during the primary campaign. If that's the distinction, "Primary campaign issues" would obviously be a better heading than "Media issues." Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "Media Issues" with "Controversies" and the reasoning is clear. Arzel (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 47% video is a media issue and should be located under media issues. Media issues have amounted mainly to 'distractions' from the core policy of the campaign. Media issues and hype attempting to aid the opposing campaign is not necessarily a controversy.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New format removes the "Primary Campaign"/"General Election Campaign" division and incorporates all of these topics in a new "Media Issues" section, arranged largely chronologically. The rest of the primary campaign issues are included in the section on primary and caucus votes. Problem solved. Dezastru (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East

Clearly, I could not provide the full part of the speech about the Middle East, as it's just too much (Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations allows removing extraneous text for this reason). He said (and I quoted) "I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard." Rather than provide one out-of-context sentence without ellipses, I tried to provide both of the perspectives he gave.

I'm open to a better selection of quotes if you think I left important context out. Alternatively we could use a secondary source like [1], but this has received significant secondary coverage so it needs to be included. Superm401 - Talk 15:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can deffinatly NOT use what you think are most important, that would be WP:OR. Nothing "needs" to be covered anywhere, but I will agree that his comments have recieved coverage. However, given that the tapes have been selectivelyedited it is questionable whether any specific transcripts from them can be used at all. Arzel (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost the entire video has been released now, at [2] ([http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video transcript). There is one continuous segment of one or two minutes total missing, where the recorder claimed the camera got turned off. I've not heard any claim by Romney's campaign that these minutes have key context regarding the controversial quotes.


I'll go ahead and use the CBS article and won't put any quotes for now (though they use some). Superm401 - Talk 16:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it" entirely cover his leadership on the issue? Hcobb (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked video

I would like to add the following or someting like it:

In a press conference hastily convened the night of the video's publication, Romney told reporters that while his extemporaneous remarks could have been more eloquently stated, he had been conveying an important message: that his proposals to lower taxes would not be as persuasive to those who are not paying taxes or who rely on government services as the president's proposals as they might be to his audience of $50,000 a plate donors. "The president believes in what I’ve described as a government-centered society, .........."

The point is that Romney was not speaking to the general public at a campaign stop. He was speaking to an audience that he felt might be in agreement with his interpretation of the sitution at hand. It softens the "He didn't really say that did he?" response. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made some updates accordingly. NW (Talk) 21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a small typo, but otherwise it looks fine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the leaked video content should be removed as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight. It amounts to a campaign promo for the opposition and includes no balance.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subarticle

Just a head's up-- there's a AFD debate about whether this section should be a subarticle or a section here. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More whitewashing.

These changes were harmful to the article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is anyone of that Harmful to the article? Some of it makes perfect sense. We don't usually WP:LABEL people unless the goal is to push a POV, especially when you only WP:LABEL one side. The addition of "Independent" to factfinders is redundant unless you are trying to make a point, because the factfinders are assumed to be independent. Arzel (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Standard, the lone voice in the woods

Per BRD, I'm bringing up the insertion and subsequent removal of a contrary view.[3] It comes from the Weekly Standard, which describes itself as conservative, and does not repreent anything close to the mainstream view. It may be a minor view, but with just one data point, we can't say even that much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other opinions are not required to be "mainstream" especially when the two sources that were being used are hardly mainstream either. Huffpo? Really? Regardless, the previous statement was not even backed up by the statement, unlike mine which was. The other two sources (which I have removed) did not mention the difference between the two bounces as being ascribed to the lack of specifics on Romney. Granted one of the two (Bloomberg) did say that Romney lack specifics with regard to the convention, however it did not attribute the difference in the two bounces to this. The other (Huffpo) was upset that Romney did not mention more religion and also did not link the two event. It was quite the reach to ever make the statement from that source. I removed that section as it is no less fringe than the clearly stated assesment by known editor Jay Cost that the Obama bounce (now over as well) was partly due to media fawning, which to anyone watching NBC would have been hard pressed to miss. Arzel (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRD re Romney in London

An IP has persisted in rewording the sentence concerning press reaction to Romney's comments on preparations for the Olympics thus [4]. This appears to be self-evidently WP:OR: the sentence "In London, the British press exploited his comments restating "disconcerting stories" of security concerns over readiness of the London 2012 Olympic Games, which prompted a defensive response from British politicians." is *not* a reflection of the sources cited, but is POV editorializing (i.e. suggesting that the British press somehow conspired to force British politicians to denounce Romney's comments) which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Having reverted this edit once, I am now stating quite clearly why I did so: I don't particularly want to be involved in an edit-war, but this is a rare instance where it seems to me there is no justification to allow the edit to stand. I am going to leave a message on the IP's talk page explaining to him the policies involved and to ask him to self-revert - unless, perhaps, another editor here is prepared to do the revert. Alfietucker (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since over an hour has passed with no response, I have now revised the sentence so it is more in line with the given citations. Alfietucker (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo and Benghazi attacks

There seems to be an attempt to cover-up for Obama regarding the Benghazi attacks and slant the article. The Obama administration claimed the attack was spontaneous, while McCain and others claimed it was a terrorist attack. Leading Republicans supported Romney. The media were caught on tape conspiring to undermine the Romney statement which is highly notable if the media are going to be mentioned as criticizing Romney.[5] [6]. There is also a habit in the article by some of claiming criticisms by the media but not including a balance of support from the media. There seems to be a habit of spinning sections against Romney in the article without providing a balance or neutrality and giving undue weight to media criticism.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is not the appropriate forum for debating these issues. There is a separate article specifically devoted to the diplomatic missions attacks, which would be the place to discuss whether the attacks were spontaneous or were planned terrorist attacks. None of the initial statements of any of the parties involved (US diplomatic missions, State Department, President, Romney himself) made any direct mention of preplanned terrorist attacks. The criticism directed toward Romney that was described in this article before the edits made in the past few hours focused on Romney's having misunderstood or mischaracterized the timing of the course of events in the Administration's response to the attacks. That is the topic that the majority of reliable sources discuss. Second, what are the reliable sources that state that the media conspired against Romney? Westernjournalism.com is hardly a reliable source. Dezastru (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me second that last point: this talk page is a place to discuss specific changes to the article text, backed by specific reliable sources. It's not a venue for general complaints about the U.S. media. MastCell Talk 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Kendrick7 said.

This editor was wrong to edit-war in an attempt to keep the text they added, and now they're gone.[7] But how about what they said? Can it be salvaged and find a place in the article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what would it look like if it were trimmed down to size? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRD on "synthesis"

TParis has previously suggested that reverting an article under community probation requires a comment on the talk page, not just an edit comment, so I created this section as a place to discuss this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this do you not understand?

I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president.

Just let me know and I'll try to clarify it for you. Hcobb (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think people have raised the question of original synthesis because the sources you cite don't directly connect Romney's statement about paying the minimum required tax with his subsequent statement that he'd paid more than the minimum required. That connection needs to be made by independent, reliable sources, not by an editor juxtaposing two contradictory statements by Romney. Of course, independent, reliable sources have made this connection (e.g. ABC News, Reuters, Associated Press, etc.); they should be cited to resolve the question of original synthesis. I'm still a little skeptical that this rather minor "gotcha" moment warrants inclusion. It's not exactly news that Romney occasionally contradicts himself, after all. :P MastCell Talk 21:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These kind of "gotcha" edits really have no place here. Romney pays more than he has to because he doesn't take the full deduction required in order to uphold a campaign pledge and he is criticized for it? Really is this the road people want to travel down? Arzel (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, first he made a campaign pledge that he didn't pay a penny more than the absolute minimum tax required by law. Then he made a campaign pledge that he'd paid at least ~14%. Then he needed to tweak his filing in order to uphold the second pledge, thus violating the first. But whatever - in terms of actual campaign issues relevant to an encyclopedia, it seems relatively minor. MastCell Talk 21:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does everybody agree that these are both aspects of the "Tax Returns" issue and both worthy of inclusion, if not perhaps right next to each other? His first response to the question was to state that he had exactly followed the law and later his surrogate fudged the numbers to keep his tax rate in the quoted range. Hcobb (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Fudged the numbers" suggests something unethical, which isn't the case. Romney is free to take all, some, or none of the deductions to which he's entitled. MastCell Talk 21:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's legal, but odd enough to be notable. For example, I don't take all the deductions I can, but the amount I lose is minimal; not really worth the extra effort of itemization. Romney intentionally overpaid by millions, apparently so that his tax rate wouldn't be even more embarassingly low. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Embarassingly low? He paid more in taxes than 97% of all Americans and about average if you include payroll taxes (which you end up getting back as SS). But I do love the continued attempts to demonize Romney. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's been paying something like 15% of his income. Real people pay twice that percentage. But you know this already, right? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a severe misunderstanding about taxes, but I suppose if you only listen to the propaganda you can be forgiven. Arzel (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm not going to correct you further. I've made my point. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should take you economic skills to factcheck.org as well because your claim that "real people pay twice that" is simply not true....or they don't know what they are talking about. Arzel (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, it's not synthesis: Jon Stewart connected the dots. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intersection of Mitt Romney and Taxes is a major aspect of the campaign. It came up in the primary, it's getting hammered by the Dems-- it's part of the campaign. Cover it, just cover it from a NPOV. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Force One

Looks like the campaign's plane has a name and some notability. Perhaps it is worth mentioning it in this article? Here and here are some sources. Cheers! --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Debate

What is the context of this edit? Why is this particular quote selected? Who determines why this particular quote should be used? The edit looks like WP deciding what is most important by pulling from a transcript. Arzel (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, looking for third party sources and reducing to a note that the debate occurred. Hcobb (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the 2008 campaign articles. Obama's simply lists the debates and their formats while McCain's gives a small amount of overall detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the proper level would be the "meta narrative" of the lamestream press and/or polling that congeals like blood on the floor after a few days? Hcobb (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The polls are in and the winner is... http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/polls-show-a-strong-debate-for-romney/ (So can we add that?) Hcobb (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO. PLEASE do not say that X or Y won the debate. To win something, you must first define some goal or outcome or yardstick. Such measures are never specified before political debates, yet after they're over, commentators are happy to spout meaningless crap like "so and so won", but they never say what they mean by "won". These debates are helpful to ventilate issues that are important to voters, and that's it; they're not about winning or losing. That distinction is reserved for the first Tuesday in November. If they truly were about winning and losing, that would mean everybody would vote for whoever is perceived to have won the debate. Clearly, that is not the case. Individuals may have a private view about who won and lost, according to their own private criteria; they're entitled to have such opinions. So are journalists in their private capacity. But these private criteria would all be different, and therefore incommensurate. These private opinions are irrelevant to sensible political discourse. And even if 50 million people agreed that Romney won or Obama won this debate, or even all three, that changes nothing about how the American people en masse will ultimately vote on election day. We can say they had a debate; we can say that one appeared to be more in control or articulate or responsive than the other, or whatever. But PLEASE do not say that either of them "won" the debate. Please. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 12:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's widespread consensus among RSs (I'm not saying there is), why shouldn't we include it? Hot Stop (Edits) 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that Wikistan pick a winner. Simply that we report what the instant polls said. Hcobb (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Checking?

Fact checking has become a fairly large topic with regard to this campaign; I'm wondering if we shouldn't include a section on that. Dougom (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitt_Romney_2012_presidential_campaign&oldid=516045367"